# Determining the Feasibility and Effectiveness

**of Aircraft Pilot Mentoring Programs**

Civil Aerospace Medical Institute Federal Aviation Administration Oklahoma City, OK 73125 May 201 5

Final Reporti 

### Table of Contents Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 1 Need for an Aircraft Pilot Mentoring Program ................................ ............................... 1 Pilot Training as a Continual Process ................................ ................................ ............. 2 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 3 Establishing a Definition of Aircraft Pilot Mentoring ................................ .................... 3 A Review of the Effectiveness of Mentoring Programs ................................ ................. 8 Characteristics of a Good Mentor ................................ ................................ ................. 11 Characteristics of a Good Protégé ................................ ................................ ................. 14 Relating These Results to Airline Piloting Goals ................................ ......................... 16 Challenges for Pilot Mentoring ................................ ................................ ..................... 17 Mentor Program Recommendations ................................ ................................ ............. 19 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 25 Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 30 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 33 Appendix A

– Summary

of Workplace Mentoring (Meta Anal ys es)* ............................. 44 Appendix B

– An Evidence - Based Approach to Workplace Mentoring .......................... 46 Planning and Providing Infrastructure ................................ ................................ .......... 47 Participant Recruitment and Selection ................................ ................................ .......... 48 Matching Mentors and Protégés ................................ ................................ ................... 49 Training ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 50 Mentoring Structure and Process ................................ ................................ .................. 50 Monitoring and Program Evaluation ................................ ................................ ............ 51 Action Plan ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 52 References

– Appendices ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 581



## Determining the **Feasibility and Effectiveness of**  **Aircraft Pilot Mentoring Programs**

**Introduction Need**  **for an**  **Aircraft Pilot Mentoring Program**  On February

22, 2009, a Colgan Air, Inc., Bombardier DHC - 8 - 400, operating as Continental Connection flight 3407, was on approach to Buffalo - Niagara International Airport, Buffalo, New York, when it crashed into a residence in Clarence Center, New York , killing the two pilots, two flight attendants, all 45 passengers aboard the airplane, and one person on the ground. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the probable cause of this accident was the captain’ s inappropriate response to the stall warning that eventuall y led to a stall from which the airplane did not recover. Contributing to the accident were: (1) the flight crew’s failure to monitor airspeed; (2) the flight crew’s failure to adhere to sterile c ockpit procedures; (3) the captain’s failure to effectivel y manage the flight; and (4) Colgan Air’s inadequate procedures for airspeed selection and management during approaches in icing conditions. As part of the accident report, the NTSB made recommendat ions to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for improving the professionalism, flight skills, and decision making abilities of air carrier pilots (NTSB, 2010). In response to these recommendations, the FAA drafted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would, among other actions, “establish flight crew mentoring programs for new - hire pilots and pilots upgrading or transitioning to a pilot in command position,” (FAA, 2013). Before publishing this NPRM, the FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute, Human Factors Research Laboratory , was asked to review the mentoring research literature to assess the benefits of mentoring as it was related to flight deck training. In addition,2

we were asked to research the eff ectiveness of mentoring programs across a range of occupations and to make recommendations regarding the development of mentoring programs, the selection and training of mentors , and the expected benefits to mentors and protégés. This report is a summary o f that research review. **Pilot Training as a Continual Process** As pilots move from student to certification, several requirements must be met along the way . This progression is illustrated by the test of a pilot’s knowledge in a written exam, simultaneous acquisition of flight skills while receiving instruction, and culminates with the successful completion of a practical test. As pilots train to proficiency , they do so with a certified flight instructor (CFI) in the right seat. Instructors provide immediate feedback on student performance and the best decisions to make in hy pothetical situations ( FAA, 2002 ). CFIs guide student pilots as they

become comfortable and proficient within the cockpit. At a very broad level, this instruction is the foundation of the pilot’s flight skills and decision - making ability and can establish a basis for their proficiency throughout their flying career. This initial exposure sets the stage for the understanding of aerodyn amics, risk - based decision making, and emergency preparedness within aviation. After receiving their flight certification, pilots must still undergo a periodic assessment of skills and additional training to remain current (Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61.56 Flight Review) . For airline pi lots, this usually involves assessments and training sessions using flight simulators, as well as classroom instruction. In2012, the International Federal Air Line Pilots Association (IFALPA) highlighted the importance of on - going training of both technic al and nontechnical skills to establish the requisite competencies for a professional pilot (IFA LP A, 2012) . They suggested that a portion of the training should be acquired through a3

mentoring relationship with a more experienced pilot. One reason for this may be the recent introduction of the Multi - Crew Pilot L icense (MPL) that has been adopted in Europe and other countries. Another reason may be the perceived similarity of the CFI - student relationship to the mentor - protégé relationship, essentially extending the training experience of the pilot that occurred during initial flight training. However, no research to support the effectiveness of this ty pe of training was provided within the IFALPA report. Although airlines have many options for the training of their pilots, the FAA sought to explore the prac tice of mentoring as a way to improve pilot decision - making , airmanship, and professionalism. Mentoring programs have been recommended in most governmental organizations (OP M , 2008). Mentoring has also been recommended as a successful approach in implementing operational training for several other professions , including pilots (ALPA , 2009; FAA , 200 9 ; IFALPA, 2012 ); however, the methodology for tailoring m entoring to airline pilots with established criteria that demonstrate success has yet to be accomplished. 

### Results **Establishing a Definition of**  **Aircraft Pilot Mentoring**  At a broad level, m entoring consist s of a more expe rienced individual (the mentor) offering advice, encouragement, guidance, and support to a less experienced individual in the same field (the protégé). The expectation is that the benefits that occur in this relationship occur faster than it would have if the less experienced individual had struggled through phases of trial and error on their own (Bell & Goldsmith, 2013 ). While this definition is helpful, it is not complete or precise enough for our review. The first task in the assessment of the research on mentoring is to establish a useful definition of mentoring. One problem with the mentoring literature is the possibility that one4

researcher’s definition of mentoring could differ from another researcher’ s definition. I f this discrepancy

is too great, a comparison of the research results is meaningless because even though on the surface both research studies are looking at the same concept, in reality they are measuring different activities. A review of me ntoring research b y Haggard, Dougherty , Turban, and Wilbanks (2011) underscores this problem. In this article, the authors state that the construct of mentoring has changed over the past three decades. The authors found approximately 40 different definitio ns of mentoring. This raises serious questions concerning what the construct means across studies , since few authors clearl y defined the mentoring process (what does a mentor do?). There is a similar lack of specificity in boundary conditions , including “( a) the mentor’s place within the organizational hierarch y, (b) supervisory versus nonsupervisory

mentoring, (c) inside versus outside mentors, and (d) the level of r elationship intimacy” (p. 287). One factor that determines the level of relationship intima cy is whether the mentoring is established formall y or informally (Inzer & Crawford, 2005) . The magnitude of the problem of defining mentoring can be illustrated by looking at the large number of differences between informal and formal mentoring programs. Table 1 shows a comparison of differences between informal and formal mentoring. Table 1. A comparison of differences between informal and formal mentoring . *

**Informal Mentoring Formal Mentoring**  Driven more b y developmental needs of the protégé and similarity of interests. Id eall y, the approach is based on an

organizational needs assessment. Unstructured

– structure is determined by the mentor and protégé. Structured to ensure that the process is consistent with the corporate goals and objectives (managerial talent development, skill building, diversity

development and new employee socialization (Eddy , et al. 2001). Individuals who seek mentoring need to find their own mentor

– the only screening Participation of protégés may be restricted to a specific group. A screening process is5

involves the need for mutual attraction. often used to identify and match mentors and protégés. Differences in organizational level between mentor and protégé are undefined. Differences in rank between the mentor and protégé and whether the mentor comes from the same department are typicall y predetermined. Mentors and protégés are not formally trained prior to initiation of the relationship. Best practices call for training of mentors and protégés. Goals and objecti ves for the mentoring are determined b y the nature of the relationship. Best practices call for the establishment of expectations, goals, and boundary conditions for the relationship. Meeting frequency

and duration of the mentoring is defined b y the part icipants. In formal mentoring relationships often last 3 - 6 years. The meeting frequency and duration of the mentoring are typically structured as part of the overall program. Typically , 1 - 2 hour meetings are held monthly and are designed to continue for from 6 to 12 months. Less likel y to be monitored by the organization. Best practices call for a monitoring process to identify

potential problems and to ensure success. Evaluation of formal mentoring b y the organization is rare. Best practices call for an evaluation of the program. This helps determine if the program is meeting the established goals and objectives. In formal mentoring has a greater impact on career planning, ps yc hosocial support, and long - term career goals. Some research suggests that form al mentoring is likel y to have its primary impact on psychosocial support. Research has demonstrated that formal mentoring is superior to informal mentoring. Research has demonstrated that formal mentoring is better than no mentoring. * The table structure has been built around the best practices for designing workplace mentoring programs (Allen, Finkelstein, & Poteet, 2009). Haggard et al. (2011) point out that much of the mentoring research literature does not specify whether the mentoring was formal or informal. Given the numerous differences between these two approaches, it is problematic to suggest that they are actuall y the same type of training activity . Before we can pro perl y define mentoring, we must compare and contrast the mentor protégé relati onship to other forms of training. In Table 2 , Eb y, Rhodes, and Allen (2007 ) provide a comparison of the mentoring - protégé relationship as compared to other ty pes of training relationships.6

Table 2 . Comparison of the m entor - protégé relationship to other training paradigms. From Eb y, Rhodes, and Allen (2007). Ty pe of relationship Relational dimension

Context Primary scope

of influence Degree

of mutuality Relationship

initiation Relational

closeness Interaction

required Power

difference Mentor

– protégé Academic,

community, workplace Academic,

social, career, personal Lo w

– high Informal or

formal Lo w

–high Yes Large

–

small Role model observer Academic,

community, workplace Academic,

social, career, personal None Informal or formal None No Large

– small Teacher

– student Academic Academic, career Lo w

– mo derate Formal Lo w – mo derate Yes Moderate

– small Advisor

– advisee Academic Acad e mic, career, personal Lo w

– mo derate Formal Lo w – mo derate Yes Large Supervisor

– subordinate Workplace Career Lo w – mo derate Formal Lo w – mo derate Yes Large

– mo derate Coach

– client Workplace Career, personal Lo w Formal Lo w – mo derate Yes Large Note. Shading indicates where mentor - protégé relationships are similar to other types of relationships. Looking at Table 2 , we see that the Role model - observer relationship is most similar to the mentor - protégé relationship, compared to other forms of training relationships. In addition, the other training relationships are similar to mentor- protégé onl y in requirement for interaction but can diffe r on all other relational dimensions. However, if we assume that mentoring is formal, we find similarities with other training relationships, including how the relationship is initiated and the degree of relational closeness that can be expected. In addit ion to these differences between mentoring and other types of training , there are a number of training protocols that are described as “mentoring” but do not fit the traditional mentoring template. These protocols include peer - to - peer mentoring, group ment oring, and e mentoring. Whether these should be include d as part of a mandated mentoring program will require further debate and discussion .7

To establish a clear definition of mentoring for the current paper , it is necessary to specify who the mentor is in relation to the protégé as well as the goal (s) of the mentoring process. In addition to being a more experienced individual within the same field, there is a question of whether or not the mentor is within or outside of the compan y, in a supervisory or non - supervisory

role to the protégé, is more senior or a peer of the protégé , is selected by the protégé or assigned through some other process, and other factors. In regard to the goal of the mentoring proce ss, two broad categories of mentoring found in the literature are career mentoring and ps ychosocial mentoring. Table 3 presents common ly found mentoring goals within these two categories. Itshould be noted that there have been efforts to include Role Mode ling as a separate third function (Burke, 1984; Scandura, 1992; Scandura & Ragins, 1993; Scandura & Viator, 1994). Table 3 . How mentoring supports protégé development. *

**Career Functions Psy**  **chosocial Personal Functions** Sponsorship. The mentor opens doors that would otherwise be closed. Role Modeling. The mentor demonstrates the kinds of behaviors, attitudes, and values that lead to success in the organization. Coaching. The mentor teaches and provides feedback. Counseling. The mentor helps the protégé deal with difficult professional dilemmas. Protection. The mentor supports the protégé and/or acts as a buffer. Acceptance and Confirmation. The mentor supports the protégé and shows respect. Challenging . The mentor encourages new wa ys of thinking and ac ting, and pushes the protégé to stretch his or her capabilities. Friendship. The mentor demonstrates personal caring that goes beyond business requirements. * Adapted from K.E. Kram, Mentoring at W ork: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life (N ew York: University Press of America, 1988) and appearing in Harvard Business Essentials. Coaching and Mentoring: How to Develop Top Talent and Achieve Stronger Performance . (Boston: Harvard Business Press, 2004, pg. 77). The intent of airline pilot mentoring has be en defined broadl y as an attempt to increase pilot proficiency

(ALPA, 2009). More specificall y, it is an attempt to improve airline pilot aeronautical decision - making, airmanship, and professionalism (ARC, 2010) . Comparing these8

goals to Table 3 , we can see that the intended goals of pilot mentoring include both career and psychosocial personal functions. The improvement of airmanship is most closely associated with the coaching function described in the table. Increasing professi onalism is most closely associated with the role - modeling function. Improving aeronautical decision - making could be accomplished through either coaching or challenging.

**A Review of the Effectiveness of Mentoring Programs**  In recent decades, mentoring has grown in popularity as a training tool for corporations and large organizations. As mentoring grows in the corporate world, the body of literature on mentoring also expands. The literature has described mentoring functions that provide both career and psychosocial support. These m entoring functions have been described as having positive outcomes for protégés. Mentoring in the workplace has been associated with career related outcomes for protégés that include: increased performance (e.g., sales performance, raw profit, and business success), helping behaviors (e.g., mentoring others and organizational citizenship behaviors), interpersonal relations (e.g., positive peer relations, satisfaction with coworkers, and supervisor support), and motivation and involvement (e.g., career plann ing, job involvement, motivation, and career commitment) ( Eby , Allen, Evans, Ng, & DuBois, 2008 ). In addition, protégés who received higher levels of mentoring from their mentors reported

For the purposes of the current research, the goal of airline pilot mentoring is def

ined as improving pilot airmanship, aeronautical decision - making, and professionalism. A mentor is someone within the organization who is not a supervisor of the protégé. The mentoring will be formal in the sense that it is structured to accomplish specifi c objectives. The mentor will act as a coach, challenger, and a role model for the protégé but is not prohibited from performing other functions as outlined in Table 1. Given these parameters, is there a sufficient body

o f mentoring research to support an expectation that an airline pilot mentoring program will improve protégé airmanship, aeronautical decision - making, and professionalism?9

significantl y greater organizational commitment, as well as satisfac tion with communication s with thei r supervisors (Chun et al., 2012 ; Madl ock & Kennedy- Li ghtsey , 2010). Appendix A presents a summary

of several meta - anal ys es of mentoring programs and the specific positive outcomes that were found in the literature. Compared to those who were not mentored, protégés were more likel y to be satisfied with their job and career and believe they will advance in their career, have higher political skill, and have greater compensation, salary growth, perceptions of job retention, and communication satisfaction (Allen, Eb y, Poteet, L entz, & Li ma, 2004; C h opi n, Danish, Seers, & Hook , 2012; Madlock & Kennedy- Li ghtsey , 2010; Piper, 2013; Underhill, 2006). Using a quasi - experimental design that evaluated a formal mentoring program, Seibert (1999) found that mentored protégés had higher levels of job satisfaction , but did not differ from their non - mentored colleagues with respect to role stress or self - esteem . Protégés have reported that greater levels of mentoring resulted in significantly

greater affective well - being, organizational commitment, leadership selfefficacy , and ratings of new skills learned ( Chun, Sosik, & Yun, 2012 ; Fleig - Palmer & Schoorman, 2011). M entorin g has also been shown to significantl y impact the transfer of knowledge and aid in skill acquisition/enhancement and application through peer mentoring ( Files, Blair, Mayer, & Ko, 2008; F leig - Palmer & Schoorman, 2011). Besides the benefit to protégés , stu dies have shown that mentoring relationships result in positive outcomes for mentors as well. Compared to those who have not mentored, mentors were more satisfied with their jobs and committed to their organizations. Also , mentoring resulted in higher perf

ormance at work and higher perceived career success (Ghosh & Reio, 2013). Protégés who reported receiving better mentoring also resulted in mentors reporting significantl y greater10

levels of transformational leadership, affective well - being, and organizatio nal commitment over time ( Chun et al., 2012 ). Although most of the literature has focused on the benefits of mentoring, some researchers have also looked at the negative effects of mentoring . Different ty pes of dys functions have been identified in mentoring relationships that include: negative relations (related to having bullies or enemies), sabotage, relationship difficulties (e.g., conflict and binds), spoiling of the relationship (e.g., betrayal), submissiveness, deception, and harassment (Scandura, 1 998). Protégé outcomes from these dy sfunctions can include lowered self - esteem, decreased job satisfaction, decreased propensity to become a mentor in the future, increased stress/anxiety , increased absenteeism, and increased turnover. For mentors, dysfunc tional mentoring relationships can result in increased stress/anxiety, decreased propensity to become a mentor in the future, increased jealousy , increased feelings of betrayal, increased overdependence on protégés, and increased overestimati on of protégés ’ contributions. Negative mentoring experiences have resulted from distancing/manipulative behaviors (e.g., deceit, sabotage, intentional exclusion, general abuse of power, inappropriate delegati on, self - absorption, neglect), and poor fit between the mento r and protégé (e.g., mismatched values, mismatched personality , interpersonal incompetence, personal problems, bad attitude, mismatched work styles, technical incompetence). Outcomes from these relationships resulted in increased turnover intentions, incre ased stress, and decreased job satisfaction (Eby & Allen, 2002). In addition, some ty pes of dy sfunctional mentoring has also been found to negativel y relate to social exchange perceptions, intentions to leave the relationship, depressed mood, psychological withdrawal, and poor learning (Eb y, Butts, L ockwood, & Simon, 2004). Individuals who reported that these negative experiences were typical of their mentoring relationship also perceived a greater impact from11

these experiences, which ultimately lower ed their relationship satisfaction (Eby & McManus, 2004). **Characteristics of a Good Mentor** According to Allen, Finkelstein, and Poteet (2009) employees are willing to serve as mentors due to “(1) the desire to benefit the organization and its members, (2) intrinsic satisfactions; and (3) the desire to enhance one’s own standing within the organization (pg. 30).” In a study of Dutch bank employees , Emmerik, Baugh, and Euwema (2005) found that while career aspirations were positively related to the desire to mentor networking activities were negativel y related. One of the most important aspects of being a mentor is being experienced in yo ur field, so it is no surprise that Barker (2006), Cho, Ramanan, and Feldman (2011), Ferguson (201 1 ), and Straus, Johnson, M arquez, and Feldman (2013) found that mentors who are highl y knowledgeable, skilled, and experienced in the field had more successful and more satisfied protégés. Eddy, Tannenbaum, Alliger, D’Abate, and Givens (2001), in their survey of 143 industry organi z ations, found that 70% of the 30 companies that reported on mentor screening indicated that they

used some form of mentor screening. Though the process was variable across organizations, most screened their mentors at least in regard to technical expertis e and knowledge. In addition to having experience in the field, mentors who have previous experience with mentoring relationships and a willingness to share their knowledge with a protégé are recommended. This is because these mentors are already familiar with the mentoring process and are not creating a negative learning environment by begrudgingly

giving advice (Cho, Ramanan, & Feldman, 2011; Ferguson, 2011 ; Hamlin & Sage, 2011; Murray , 1991; Zerzan, Hess, Schur, Philips, & Rigotti, 2009). Rather than a r eluctant mentor, Bre cht el (2004) and Hamlin and Sage (2011) found that it is very important to have a mentor who is supportive, encouraging, and12

work s to boost their protégé’s self - esteem. However, it is important to balance self - esteem boosting and challe nging; therefore, mentors who are honest, especiall y when offering feedback and coaching, are the most desirable ( Bre cht el, 2004 ; Cho, Ramanan, & Feldman, 2011 ; Johnson, 2002; Straus, Johnson, Marquez, & Feldman , 2013 ). Although these are some of the most important and agreed upon characteristics of an effective mentor, many researchers included several other personality factors that they felt protégés should look for in a mentor such as being caring, kind, humorous, generous, enthusiastic, warm, and passio nate . While exploratory

in nature, Smith, Howard and Harrington (2005) examined the essential traits and functions of a formal mentor from the mentor’s perspective. Using a nine member Delphi panel , they developed a list of 14 mentor traits and 21 mentor functions. They then prepared a survey

instrument and ask ed respondents to rate the importance of each trait and function on a 5 - point L ikert scale. Of the 741 survey s distributed , 355 were returned; 68 from an academic industry

context , 102 f

rom business, 101 from military - armed forces, and 70 from military- academic. A factor anal ys is of the mentor traits revealed three factors. Respectability involved honesty , integrity , high moral and ethical standards, and bearing/personal presence. Wisdom involved organization al savvy , professional competence , understand ing the organization’s core values, and ability to teach. Finally , sensitivity involved empathy , compassion/understanding, genuine ness , and confidentiality . Several mentor traits were not included due to their cross factor loadings. Respectability was viewed as mo st important, followed b y sensitivity. The factor anal ys is of the mentor function s also revealed three factors. The Training factor included : broadens protégé’s professional e xperience ; ser ves as a role model for protégé; coaches protégé ; offers introduction to academic/corporate/military culture; provides cross13

functional information ; an d provides vision for protégé. The Supporter factor involved : fosters teamwork with protégé ; accepts protégé; de velops cooperation with protégé; and provides support for protégé. The final factor , A ctivist, included : intervenes on protégé’s behalf; pro vides exposure for protégé; demonstrates networking ability for protégé; sponsors protégé; and disciplines protégé when appropriate. Several mentor functions were not included due to their cross factor loadings. The trait factor that w as most closely related with a mentor function was wisdom (r of .61) as related to career functions . The next highes t correlation was between wisdom traits and training functions (r of .55). In assessing differences across the industry contexts, the authors failed to find a significant difference in the importance ranking of the three mentor functions. There was weak ev idence that the importance of the trait rankings differed across context. The authors point out some of the concerns associated with use of these scales, including significant correlations between scales and low alphas for several scales. While a majority of the traits and functions have been identified previously , we do not know if the ratings b y formal mentors are full y consistent with what is important for protégés. Although an individual’s characteristics cannot alway s be changed, there are some behavio rs and actions that a mentor can learn and incorporate into their relationship s in order to be an effective mentor. For example, it is imperative in any relationship to communicate, and mentoring is no different. It is important for mentors to effectivel y explain their goals and expectations for the protégé, provide feedback in areas the protégé may be struggling, and listen to the protégé’s needs to adjust the goals, deadlines, or relationship dy namics (Brechtel, 2004; Gheesling, 2010; Hamlin & Sage, 2011; Ramani, Gruppen, & Kachur, 2006). It is also very important for mentors to rem ain available to their protégés by scheduling and maintaining14

regular meetings ( Cho, Ramanan, & Feldman, 2011 ; Gheesling, 2010 ; Jacobi, 1991; Zerzan, Hess, Schur, Philips, & Rigotti, 2009 ). There are also several behaviors that can lead to a negative experience or a failed relationship. Barker (2006) explained that ineffective or toxic mentors are commonly

overly critical of their protégé due to unrealistic expectations or they avoid having an y contact with them at all. Additionally, Hamlin and Sage (2011) found that ineffective mentors did not maintain consistent contact, let their opinions take priority , and did not provide the protégé with a purpose of the relationship. **Characteristics of a Good Protégé** Like mentors, there are certain characteristics o f the protégé that are related to the likelihood of having a positive mentoring relationship. Gheesling (2010), Gibson (1998), and Green and Bauer (1995) found that protégés who appeared to have more talent or were higher performing tended to receive more career based mentoring and identified assigned superiors as mentors. This is likely

due to mentors wanting to invest more time and energy into a protégé with higher potential as it may seem easier or will reflect well on them if the protégé is successful a fter the relationship concludes. L ikewise, protégés with strong work ethics and higher career motivation tend to receive more ps ychosocial support, career mentoring, and complete training programs ( Day & Allen, 2004, Green & Bauer, 1995; Hill & Dalley- Trim , 2008; Noe, 1988; Teatheredge, 2010). Finall y, protégés who are confident, positive, and proactive are more likely to have effective mentoring relationships and complete their training (Gibson, 1998; Harris et al., 2001; Hill & Dalley - Trim, 2008; Teathere dge, 2010). Additional characteristics discussed at less length in the literature include d having an internal locus of control, openness , and enthusiasm . Turban and Dougherty (1994) for example, suggest that protégés with an internal locus of control and h igh self - monitoring and emotional stability were15

more likely

to initiate a mentoring arrangement. In their review of the role of personality in mentoring relationships , Turban and Lee (2007) indicate d that they believe that personality characteristics of b oth the protégé and mentor influ ence the overall relationship. They call for additional more rigorous research to better understand the interactive effective nes s throughout the duration of the mentoring relationship. There are also several way s that a protégé can ensure that they get the most out of the relationship. One such way is to utilize their interpersonal skills. For instance, Harris et al. (2001) found that apprentices who had strong communication skills were more likely to complete training and Gibson (1998) found that high amounts of quality communication was related to high mentor effectiveness. These skills can be used to clarify expectations, explain learning goals, and provide honest feedback to a mentor in order to improve the relationship ( Hamlin & Sage, 2011 ; Straus, Johnson, Marquez, & Feldman, 2013 ). In addition to communicating effectively , protégés should work to be open and active listeners . Straus, Johnson, Marquez, and Feldman ( 2013 ) found that both these actions related to a successful mentoring relationship. Others found that protégés should show responsibility in their work, for their own learning, and for the progress of the relationship to contribute to the learning environment ( Hamlin & Sage, 2011 ; Hill & Dalley - Trim, 200 8 ; Straus, Johnson, Marquez, & Feldman, 2013 ). There are also certain qualities a protégé can exhibit or actions they take that are related to failed relationships and unsatisfied mentors. Barker (2006) explained that protégés who are manipulative and powe r seeking get into the relationship for the wrong reasons and do not see it as a learning experience; therefore, these ty pes of protégés do not tend to take any thing away from the relationship and can create a hostile environment between them and their mentor.16

Actions that Hamlin and Sage (2011) found related to negative mentoring experiences included not being prepared for meetings and coming into meetings with a negative mind - set. **Relating These Results to Airline Piloting Goals** Although there is evide nce in the literature regarding the positive effects of mentoring programs, the critical question to be answered is whether mentoring is expected to improve pilot airmanship, aeronautical decision - making, and professionalism. Most of the research studies o n mentoring looked at different professions than that of an airline pilot. For example, Dougherty and Dreher (2007) report that of 47 mentoring studies reviewed, 23 of them looked at business professionals and managers, with additional groups including law ye rs, accountants, educators, Army officers, nurses, and midshipmen. So we must ask whether the results from these studies are generalizable to the airline industry . To answer this question, we will address each of the mentoring goals (improved airmanship, better aeronautical decision - making, and increased professionalism) separately because they

involve different types of learning and different methods for assessing performance. Airmanship primarily involves the psychomotor skills and procedural knowledg e required to pilot the aircraft . D espite the claim above that mentoring increases job skill acquisition, a review of which skills have been shown to increase does not yi eld sufficient data to adequatel y assess the extent to which a mentoring relationship might improve performance of psychomotor skills, such as is required in the control of an aircraft . For example, Eby , Allen, Evans, Ng, and DuBois (2008) measured job skill as sales performance. Egan and Song (2008) indicated that “... few studies have focus ed on direct measures of job performance in relation to mentoring participation and no studies have been identified which use managerial or organizational reported measures of protégé performance (p. 355).” In their randomized field17

experiment involving employees in hea l th - care services, insurance and health maintenance Egan and Song (2008) did find that mentoring had a significant effect on managerial performance ratings. Most of the research that suggests that job performance has improved involves sales o rganizations or academic settings. This type of job skill differs significantly from the ty pe of skills required to fly

an aircraft. Likewise, the literature does not seem to directl y s upport the effectiveness of mentoring for improving aeronautical deci sion - making. Chun, Sosik, and Yun ( 2012 ) and Fleig - Palmer and Schoorman ( 2011 ) report on an improvement in leadership effectiveness but it is difficult to generalize this finding to decision - making in general and especially to aeronautical decision making. Other literature cites the need for the mentor to provide challenging assignments (e.g., Kram, 1988) , but again the generalization to decision - making within an aeronautical setting is tenuous . Unlike the first two goals, the literature does seem to offe r some support to the notion that mentoring could increase pilot profes sionalism. However, professionalism is a poorly defined concept that would need to be operationally defined and measured before determining the effects of a mentoring program. The succe ss of such a program would probably depend on both the characteristics of the mentor and the protégé, as outlined above . In addition, the ty pe of mentoring arrangement will also have an effect on the mentoring outcome. **Challenges for Pilot Mentoring** Thus far, we have suggested that the mentoring literature provides onl y limited support to the notion that mentoring programs can attain the goals for improvement of a protégé pilot ’ s airmanship, aeronautical decision - making, and professionalism that are neede d to justify mandating those programs. There are a number of other factors that need to be considered in the18

context of pilot mentoring as well. Traditional mentoring involves a one - to - one; face - t o - face relationship. Given that not all pilots live near the ir domicile, how will this affect as signment of mentor to protégé? The National Research Council’s Committee on the Effects of C ommuting on Pilot Fatigue (NRC, 2011) gained information on the zip code of the pilot’s home on record as well as the location of his/her domicile. Using that information , they were able to determine the approximate dis tance of each pilot’s commute. While 45% of the mainline, 46% of the regional, 41% of cargo and 38% of charter pilots lived within 90 miles of their domic ile, 22% of the mainline, 22% of the regional, 26% of cargo, and 30% of charter pilots lived 750 or m ore miles from their domicile. Extended commuting distances of pilots are likel y to present a challenge to the establishment of times and opportunities for face - to - face mentoring sessions. It could lead to unacceptable increase s in the length of the duty day for the involved pilots . It might also lead to problems with the scheduling of mentor - protégé meetings, especiall y when factoring in the bid practices u sed by

airlines to establish route assignments. Inaddition, if mentor - protégé meetings were assumed to occur during scheduled flights, there could be potential problems with how many times particular pairings occurred or did not occur. Another issue invo lves whether a mentor can also be the supervisor of the protégé. While there are situations where supervisors serve as mentors, most authors do not recommend this approach. The use of the captain as a mentor also involves some challenges since this would c hange the nature of the relationship and possibly modify traditional CRM recommendations/procedures. W ill mentoring be required of all new pilots? Will mentoring practices need to be different for those who enter through traditional means than those who e nter from a Multi - Crew Pilot L icense (MPL) program? Questions remain regarding the number of senior pilots who have19

the necessary

expertise, interest, motivation, and interperson al skills to serve as mentors. Depending on staffing levels, this may represent a significant challenge for some carriers. As is true of an y work environment, mentoring is already going on. At this point we don't know how often, the extent to which it occurs and its benefits in aviation. Itis doubtful that traditional formal mento ring programs will be sufficient to address all of the potential issues involved in the proposed pilot mentoring goals . This is based on data that suggest that most formal mentoring programs last a year and involve monthly or twice a month face - to - face mee tings ( Eddy et al. , 2001; Hegstad & Wentling, 2004; Murray , 1991; R agins & Cotton, 1999 ) . It seems highl y unlikel y that a one - ye ar program, involving 12 meetings will be sufficient to communicate the necessary information and ensure that the performance of a younger pilot has been sufficiently enhanced. Data have consistently demonstrated greater benefits from informal as compared with formal mentoring programs. One factor that may contribute to this difference is that when a mentor selects a protégé as par t of an informal approach he/she may select onl y high performing individuals, individuals who are highl y motivated to su cceed. Another factor is that the literature on mentoring suggests that the higher the frequency of meetings the more likely the mentori ng will have a positive outcome. The extent to which this imposes an additional burden on work schedules could be problematic. **Mentor Program**  **Recommendations** If the decision is made to proceed with a mentoring program , some approaches to the mentoring process would likely increase the probability of the success of the program. This section of the report will highlight the development of a formal mentoring program. A more detailed set of information concerning best practices, as described in the book by Allen, Finkelstein, and Poteet (2009) , can be found in Appendix B.20

**Planning and Providing Infrastructure** . As with any intervention in the workplace, it is extremely important that employees can readily observe upper mana gement’s support and ownership. This can be demonstrated in how the mentoring program is developed. With regards to the development of a formal flight crew mentoring program, the impetus came from the US Congress as part of the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L . 111 - 216) ɠ 206 that called for the FAA to establish an aviation rulemaking committee to provide recommendations regarding the establishment of a flight crewmember mentoring program in which experience d flight crewmembers would be paired with newl y employed flight crewmembers. The goal was to provide “... specific instruction on techniques for instilling and reinforcing the highest standards of technical performance, airmanship and professionalism in newly employed flight crewmembers.” (Pub. L. 111 - 216). Additional efforts were to be directed toward enhancing leadership and command experience and improving professional development. Results from the MLP ARC are provided in their November 2010 report. They

re commended that carriers establish a professional development committee that would be responsible for the selection and training of “career mentors” for newly hired pilots as well as initial upgrading captains. While in some way s this effort could be consid ered to be part of the needs assessment that would serve as the basis for the development of the overall goals and objectives for a formal mentoring program it provides limited information concerning how this should be accomplished within an air carrier’s organization. It is important that the goals and objectives of the mentoring program are firml y tied to the organization’s culture and to other human resource strategies associated with pilot training and development. If technical performance, airmanship and professional development are the overall goals of the mentoring effort, how will this be addressed during mentoring and how can you measure those goals and21

ensure that the mentoring was successful? We have addressed a number of concerns surrounding thes e goals earlier in this document. Each air carrier will need to determine the extent to which their mentoring program can assist in improving technical performance, airmanship, and professionalism. Details concerning the mentoring process need to be define d and a program manager identified. Attention needs to be focused on the importance of confidentiality in the mentoring process. Clear standards need to be established so that both mentor and protégé understand the limits of confidentiality . The planning n eeds to include a description of all other aspects of the mentoring program including the monitoring process and overall evaluation. **Protégé selection** . The requirement suggests that the formal mentoring will be provided to all new hires as well as to newly upgraded captains. **Matching** . One solution for the conflicts that may arise due to individual differences is controlling the matching process. Rather than randomly assigning mentors to protégés, there are a f ew factors to consider to ensure that the relat ionship starts off on the right foot. First, what are referred to as deep level similarities between mentors and protégés should be considered as studies have found that perceived personality similarities or incompatibilities strongl y predicted satisfactio n levels and success (Gheesling, 2010; Straus, Johnson, Marquez, & Feldman, 2013 ; Waters, 2004). It should also be noted that while Ensher and Murph y (1997) found that general perceived similarities were related to high satisfaction and liking for both mentors and protégés ; later works suggested matching based on similar attitudes and values , rather than demographics , is more beneficial ( Ensher, Gr ant - Vallone, & Marelich, 2002; Lee, Dougherty , & Turban, 2000). Lankau, Riordan, and Thomas (2005) reported that deep - level similarity (personality, interests, work values, and problem solving approach) were more important in forming a positive liking relationship than similarity in gender, race or other demographic characteristics. Finally , research22

from Bo yl e and Boice (1998) and Straus, Johnson, Marquez, and Feldman ( 2013 ) suggested that mismatched expectations between the mentor, protégé, and program can result in failed r elationships and unmet goals. Hegstad and Wentling (2004) found that all of the Fortune 500 Companies in their review used a matching proce ss to link protégé and mentor. Comments from compan y personnel suggests that this may be one of the more crucial factors involved in the mentoring process. In their review of industry mentoring programs , E d dy etal. (2001) reported that 75% of the organizations used some sort of structured matching procedure. **Training** . Another simple solution is to prepare mentors and protégés for the relationship. One of the most important and highly agreed - upon elements that should be included in pre - relationship training is alignment and clarification of expectations between the mentor, protégé, and program creators (Barnett, 1995; Garvey & Alred, 2000; Kasprisin & Single, 2005; Ramani, Gruppen, & Kachur, 2006). Addition all y , Kasprisin, Single, Single, Ferrier, and Muller (2008) and Scielzo (2008) found that protégés who participate d in pre - relationship training tend to disclose at a similar level to their mentor and have mentors who were more involved, more satisfied with the relationship, and reported holding their protégés in higher esteem. Training mentors appeared to result in more learning for their protégés, more career support given to protégés, and higher satisfaction with their protégés (Giebelhaus & Bowman, 200 2 ; Martin & Sifers, 2012; Scielzo, 2008). Allen, Finkelstein, and Poteet (2009) define several levels of protégé

– mentoring training that should be a part of a well - designed workplace mentoring program. Hegstad and Wentling found that training was conduct ed in all but one of the participating companies. Eddy et al. (2001) indicate that 58% of the industry companies provided “mentoring program orientations.”23

In addition, mentor training should have a human relations component , which includes gender/culture issues awareness, boundaries in the mentor - protégé relationship, and increasing interpersonal skills (Barnett, 1995; Garvey & Alred, 2000; Ramani, Gruppen, & Kachur, 2006). Training should also focus on develop ing mentor - spec ific skills such as knowing how to balance challenging and supporting the protégé , keeping the focus of the relationship on the protégé, and not trying to take on mental/personal problems in the protégé’s life ( Barnett, 1995; Garvey & Alred, 2000; Ramani, Gruppen, & Kachur, 2006 ). According to Garvey and Alred (2000) , it is also important to emphasize the need for trust in the relationship as it facilitates a safe environment for the protégé to share openl y. Research has suggested that protégés should rec eive very sim ilar training to their mentors regarding both structure and information ( Kasprisin & Single, 2005 ; Scielzo. 2008). Eddy et al. (2001) found that mentor training typicall y emphasized the roles and responsibilities of the mentor, giving feedback , coaching, listening and communications skills ; while for protégés, the emphasis was on protégé roles and responsibilities, career choices/career advising, selfawareness, and listening and communications skills. Agreed upon protégé - specific recommendatio ns included assessing what they want to take away

from the relationship and reflecting on values, perspectives, and biases that they may bring to the relationship (Dean, 2009; Zerzan, Hes s, Schur, Philips, & Rigotti, 2009 ). Dean (2009) also asserted that p rotégés should decide what qualities they want most in a mentor and communicate expectations earl y to ensure their needs are not overlooked. According to Zerzan, Hess, Schur, Philips, and Rigotti (2009) , it will also be beneficial to the protégé if they id entify their wor k and learning styles and establish learning goals with specific time increments to help keep the relationship moving forward and focused .24

**Monitoring and Program Evaluation** . When carriers establish the new part 119 professional development position, there is a question of whether that individual as well as members of the professional development steering committee (PDSC) will be responsible for develop ing , monitoring, and evaluati ng the formal aircrew mentoring program. Someone needs to be designated as the responsible individual for the formal mentoring program. If you do not establish a process to monitor the mentoring you will be unable to determine whether the participants are meeting as required and/or whether there are problems with so me of the mentoring relationship s. Periodic follow - ups are required. It would be advisable to obtain feedback from the mentor and protégé within the first few weeks of the program concerning how the relationship is developing and whether there are any issu es that need to be resolved. Without a formal evaluation you will be unable to determine if the pro gram objectives are being met. This can be accomplished in a variety of way s. As indicated in Appendix B, Kirkpatrick has described four levels of measureme nt: (1) reactions to the training, (2) learning what resulted from the training, (3) behavior or performance change, and (4) business results for the organization. These efforts can be accomplished through face - to - face meetings, survey s, or group feedback sessions. The last two levels of measurement are often left o ut during program evaluations. They

are also the most difficult to measure. It is often difficult to determine the extent to which behavioral or performance changes can be attributed to the intervention or to other factors that have occurred. Itwill also be difficult to determine the extent to which the formal mentoring process may have impacted the organization since the effects of any intervention take time to show results.25 

### Conclusions Whi le there are numerous studies in the literature that support the effectiveness of mentoring programs, there are very few that directly

support the expectation that mentoring will improve pilot airmanship, decision - making, and professionalism. Two difficult problems with the use of mentoring as an effective training tool is the lack of well - established definitions of the mentoring process and the lack of scientific rigor in the mentoring research literature. There is a wealth of anecdotal literature that su pport s the importance of mentors in the lives of influential individuals. Each of us can probably remember a teacher, colleague, supervisor, or an other employee who served as a mentor and thus supported our career choices and career development. Numerous r esearch studies have been designed to identify the important mentor/protégé factors that support the career and psychosocial development of the protégé. However, we could not draw definitive conclusions from the literature because of the general lack of sc ientific rigor involved in nearl y all of the investigations. With few exception s , mentoring studies can be described as cross - sectional field studies. This means that in the workplace, data are gathered from emplo yees at a single point in time. Employees are asked to indicate whether or not they had a mentor and are subsequently asked to describe, define , or rate the mentoring experience and the overall outcomes, depending on the focus of the investigation. Shipp and Fried (2014a, 2014b) edited a two - volume set devoted to time and work. The articles contained in those volumes illustrate the problems associated with research that is focused on a single dimension in time and does not consider the temporal nature of events that occur in the workplace. For example, when asking employees to describe or rate their mentoring experiences at a single point in time, we know nothing about how that experience has evolved across time, difficulties that may have been encountered, or how those26

events have impacted the emp loyee’s mentoring experience. Another important issue is that whenever there is a change in the workplace, there is likely a time lag between what was changed or implemented and the employee’s reactions. As indicated by Dougherty

and Dreher (2007), most of the research attention has been focused on proximal (immediate) versu s distal (long - term) outcomes. Eby et al. (201 3 ) also addresses this point, “Currently we have virtuall y no understanding of the dynamic nature of mentoring relationships or how critical events in a mentoring relationship influence the trajectory of the relationship (p. 632).” We also know little about what percentage of the mentoring relationships result ed in positive outcomes, how many were positive but not particularly noteworthy , how many

involve d negative outcomes, and how many were primaril y dys functional. In one study (Eby, McManus, Simon, & Russell, 2000), more than 50% of the participants reported at least one negative mentoring experience during their career. Ramaswami and Drehe r (2010) propose a process - oriented model that can be used to better understand the process or mechanisms whereby mentoring can influence career outcomes. Additional research is needed to evaluate the potential mediating processes as well as determine the relative influence of individual functions. Additional scales beyond those currently in use are needed to suppor

t this effort. Concerns associated with the cross - sectional nature of the mentoring research are listed in a table b y Dougherty and Dreher (200 7, p. 85) shown in Figure 1.27

Figure 1. Key

Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Studies of Mentoring and Protégé Career Outcomes. The first concern listed in Figure 1, Definitional Variability , refers to the definition of mentoring across studies and how those differences may influence outcomes , as was discussed earlier . Along with the definitional issues, Scandura and Pell e grini (2010) expressed concerns about the lack of integration between the mentoring literature and other psycho logical research, th e need for improved measurement instruments, as well as improvements in the overall des ign of the research and the nee d for longitudinal investigations. Criterion problems include the need to expand the investigation of the effects of mentoring to consider the overall functioning of the organization, and whether mentoring has28

affected the talent pool of employees who are being considered for advancement. Positive as well as negative effects of mentoring need to be considered with this type of research. There is a tendency

for individuals to assume causality involving correlations between mentoring and outcomes. Dougherty and Dreher (2007); Eby et al. (201 3 ); Allen, Eby , and Lentz (2006); and Turban and Dougherty (1994) raise concerns th at common method bias (variance) can be explained in several way s . So you should not assume that mentoring was a causal factor in the outcomes. There may be other interpretations. Dougherty and Dreher (2007) refer to several factors that may

contribute to the outcomes: (1) consistency in cognitions and attitudes, (2) illusory

correlations and implicit theories, (3) social desirability , and (4) positive and negative affectivity

of respondents. At this point there are an insufficient number of longitudinal or quasi - experimental studies in the literature to adequatel y define the overall impact of mentoring. Eb y et al. (201 3 , p. 24) indicated the need for “...more methodologicall y rigorous research...” in order to make causal inferences. Another concern involves the wide range of time periods involved in the various studies. While formal mentoring generall y involves 9 months to a year, informal mentoring may last up to 6 years or more. Given that Kram (1985) defines and demonstrates the importance of stages in the mentoring process, it is difficult to see how those stages can be adequately accomplished in formal mentoring settings with a time frame of a year or less. This issue has not been adequatel y addressed in the literature. The indication in several studies that mentoring relationships are more positive and outcomes are improved in informal mentoring as compared to formal mentoring should not be unexpected, given the difference in time involved in mentoring. Another difference that is often touched on when c omparing formal and informal mentoring involves the approach to the selection of a protégé. Informal mentoring involves a29

voluntary choice on the part of the mentor. Most formal mentoring programs involve a matching process. Protégés who report receiving m entoring support often have higher ability or potential, higher motivation and commitment, strong interpersonal skills, and positive self - regard. Turban and Dougherty (1994, p. 698) found that “... individuals with internal loci of control and high self - moni toring and emotional stability were more likely

to initiate and therefore to receive mentoring.” Given those general characteristics of protégés, is it the mentoring, the proactive behavior of certain employees, or the selection of high quality emplo yees that leads to more positive outcomes? Wanberg, Kammeyer - Mueller, and Marchese (2006, p. 417) found that mentor proactivity at program onset related “...positively to both protégé and mentor reports of career - related mentoring and to mentor reports of psychoso cial mentoring at the conclusion of the program.” In summary , despite a superficial resemblance to initial flight training methodologies, there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of mentoring , in general, and in achieving the goals focused on in this report , in particular. Most studies used to validate a particular training methodology

involve a pre - training test of proficiencies , training, and post - training test of proficiencies design, with the expectation that post - training proficiency scor es will be higher and demonstrate the effectiveness of the training protocol. While even these typ es of studies have potential problems with confounding variables, they are more effective than other approaches at validating the effectiveness of the trainin g. The cross - sectional nature of most mentoring studies do es not allow a clear validation of mentoring as an effective training technique. Th is , in addition to the problems with finding consistent mentoring methodologies , do es not allow us to conclude that mentoring is an effective approach to improving pilot airmanship, aeronautical decision - making, or professionalism.30 

### Recommendations 1. Before proceeding with mandating mentoring programs for the airlines, clearly specified goals need to be developed for those programs. Development of those goals should include a consideration of the potential impact of cultural differences between carriers on the implementation of the mentoring program. Mentor selection and training requirements should be established, and the process for pairing mentors and protégés should be understood. Appendix B presents a highl y structured approach to the development of a workplace mentoring program, along with recommendations for the evaluation of the effectiveness of the program. We recommend that an operational test of a mentoring program be completed within a selected airline to e nsure that there is no undue imposition on the workloads of mentors or protégés, and that flight scheduling activities are not negatively affected. Pre - and post - mentoring measures of pilot performance (airmanship, decision making, professionalism) should be used to establish the effectiveness of the mentoring process. Other details, such as the length of the mentoring program, would also need to be specified prior to the operational test. The approach to mentoring may differ for newly

hired pilots that enter through traditional means (1,500 hours) versus those who enter via MPL training programs (10 hours solo, 240 hours log time) . 2. As an alternate recommendation, we believe that other forms of pilot training might prove to be more effective than mentoring. For example, a form of accelerated expertise (Hoffman, Ward, Fel tovich, DiBello, Fiore , & Andrews, 201 3 ) emphasizes efforts to focus more clearl y on the development of scenarios that could be used to train workers regarding decision making on complex events. Cases would be developed and focused around problems or event s “older” workers had encountered that challenged their decision - making ability .31

H offman et al. (2013 ) indicate that the events that are identified should involve “ ... cases from their own experience that caused them great difficulty and stretched their profe ssional capacity” (p.159) . A case library of these events would then be constructed and used to develop specialized computer - based scenarios or simulations that could be presented to yo unger workers to improve their ability to identify

and respond to unus ual events. The cases/scenarios contained in the database should be ranked on the basis of the level of knowledge required to respond appropriatel y. This will guide their use at the appropriate time during training. Examples of accelerated approaches to training include; the use of Intelligent Tutoring S ys tems, an approach to the training of “perceptual - cognitive” skills in athletes (the ability to rapidl y perceive patterns that non - experts cannot perceive), and use of the Decision - Making Exercise Method (D MX

– which was initially used to train military commanders). 3. A third recommendation is to look at the practice of virtual or e - mentoring. The increasingl y global nature of business , along with the widespread geographic locations of co - workers in many large corporations , has resulted in an increased interest in what Zey (2014) calls virtual mentoring where “... electronic - based communication is the primary format for mentor protégé interaction (p. 2.) . ” This form of mentoring has been described in many way s - “...e mentoring, e - coaching, computer - mediated mentoring, telementoring, e - mail mentoring, internet mentoring, online mentoring, cy bermentoring, virtual mentoring, electronic mentoring, distance mentoring, W eb - enabled coaching, and W eb - based mentoring (p. 3) ” Communication between mentor and protégé can take many forms including use of the telephone, video conferencing, email, online chat sessions, knowledge bases, texting, instant messaging, Skype, Webex, and other forms of W eb - conferencing software. Modern32

communications in the medical field also allow real - time and live teaching of techniques and procedures via telementoring. Zey (2014) indicates that Intel was one of the pioneers in online mentoring. Since then, a number of other Fortune 500 c ompanies have utilized online mentoring. Single and Muller (2001) describe the development and implementation of MentorNet (www.mentornet.net) as a means of providing a nationwide structured e mentoring program for women enginee ring and science students that was designed to “...encourage retention and advancement for women students in engineering and related science field s (p. 110) . ” This effort has been in place since 1997 and can serve as a model for structured mentoring. A Cy ber mentor program involving the University of Calgary , the University

of Alberta , and the Alberta Women’s Science Network has similar goals and objectives (Kenter, 2010) While these programs have many of the same issues and concerns associated with traditiona l face - to - face mentoring programs , one advantage is that the mentor and protégé do not have to be phy sically at the same place , and with some forms , the communications can be asy nchronous. Shrestha, May , Edirisingha, Burke, and L insey (2009), while identifying a number of commonalities between e - mentoring and traditional mentoring also identified some challenges that are particular to e - mentoring in an academic environment in the United Kingdom . While there is limited research available regarding best practices and the overall benefits from e - mentoring, it could resolve concerns in aviation regarding the need for face - to - face meetings between mentor and protégé. Use of knowledge bases and other technology tools (part task simulations) that could be used to present technical challenges to protégés could lead to increase d training opportunities and could challenge and enhance pilot decision - making. Efforts would need to be expended to see how these opportunities are utilized in other professions,33

particularl y in medicine. Angstman, Adamson, Furst, Houston, & Rohrer (2009) surveyed the extent to which primary

care ph ys icians in a large multispecialty clini c utilized a form of e mentoring called virtual consultation (VC) and their level of satisfaction with virtual consultations with specialists. While 30% of those surveyed had not tried the VC sy stem, 73% felt that VCs provided good medical care and 81% indicated that they were an efficient use of their time. 

### References Air L ine P ilot Association, International (2009). Producing a professional airline pilot: Candidate screening, hiring, training, and mentoring. ALPA White Paper , retrieved from: https://www.a lpa.org/portals/alpa/pressroom/inthecockpit/ProducingProfessionalPilot_9 - 2009.pdf Allen, T. D., Eb y, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006). Mentorship behaviors and mentorship quality associated with formal mentoring programs: closing the gap between research and prac tice. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 (3), 567. Allen, T. D., Eb y, L. T., Poteet, M. L ., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for pr otégés: A meta - anal ys is . Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (1 ) , 127

– 136. Allen, T. D., Finkelstein, L. M., & Poteet, M. L. (2009). Designing workplace mentoring programs: An evidence - based approach (Vol. 19). John Wiley & Sons. Angstman, K.B., Adamson, S.C., Furst, J.W., Houston, M.S., and Rohrer, J.E. (2009). Provider satisfaction with virt

ual specialist consultations in family medicine department. Health Care Management , 28(1), 14 - 8.34

ARC (2010). Flight crewmember mentoring, leadership and professional development (MLP) Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) report (Nov. 2, 2010) Barker, E. R. (2006). Mentoring: A complex relationship. Journal of the American Academy o f Nurse Practitioners, 18 (2), 56 - 61. Barnett, B. G. (1995). Developing reflection and expertise: Can mentors make the difference? Journal o f Educational Administration, 33 (5), 45 - 5 9. Bell, C. R., & Goldsmith, M. (2013). Managers as mentors: Building partnerships for learning . San Francisco, CA, US: Berrett - Koehler Publishers . Bo yl e, P., & Boice, B. (1998). Sy stematic mentoring for new faculty teachers and graduate teaching a ssistant s. Innovative Higher Education, 22 (3), 157 - 179. Brechtel, M. F. (2004). The affective correlates of a good mentoring relationship. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 64 (9 - B), pp. 4604. Burke, R.J. (1984). Mentors in organizations. Group and Organization Studies, 9, 353 - 372. Cho, C. S., Ramanan, R. A., & Feldman, M. D. (2011). Defining the ideal qualities of mentorship: A qualitative anal ys is of the characteristics of outstanding mentors. American Journal o

fMedicine, 124 (5), 453 - 458. Chopin, S. M., Danish, S. J., Seers, A., & Hook, J. N. (2012). Effects of mentoring on the development of leadership self - efficacy and political skill. Journal o f Leadership Studies, 6(3), 17 - 32. Chun, J. U., Sosik, J. J., & Yun, N. Y. (2012). A longitudinal study of mentor and protégé outcomes in formal mentoring relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33 (8), 1071

– 1094.35

Day , R., & Allen, T. D. ( 2004 ) . The relationship between career motivation and self - efficacy with protégé career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 64: 72 - 91. Dean, D. J. (2009). Preparing to be mentored. In Getting the Most out of your Mentoring Relationships: A handbook for women in STEM . 3, pp.7 - 19. New York, NY: Springer. Dougherty, T., & Dre her, G. (2007). Mentoring and career outcomes: conceptual and methodological issues in an emerging literature. In Belle Rose Ragins and Kathy Kram (Eds.) The Handbook of Mentoring at W ork (pp. 51 - 94) . California: Sage. Eby , L. T., & Allen, T. D. (2002). Further investigation of protégés’ negative mentoring experiences patterns and outcomes. Group & Organization Management, 27(4), 456 - 479. Eby , L.T., Allen, T.D., Evans, S.C., Ng, T., & DuBois, D.L. (2008), Does mentoring m atter? A multidisciplinary meta - analy sis comparing m entore d and non - mentored individuals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72 (2) , 254

–267. Eby , L.T., Allen, T.D., Hoffman, B.J., Baranik, L.E., Sauer, J.B., Baldwin, S., Morrison, M.A., Kinkade, K.M., Maher, C.P., Curtis, S., & Evans, S.C. (2013 ). An interdisciplinary meta anal ys is of the potential antecedents , correlates, and consequences of protégé perceptions of mentoring. Psychological Bulletin , 139(2), 441 - 476. Eby , L., Butts, M., L ockwood, A., & Simon, S. A. (2004). Protégés negat ive mentoring experiences: Construct development and nomological validation. Personnel Psychology, 57(2), 411 - 447. Eby , L. T., & McManus, S. E. (2004). The protégé's role in negative mentoring experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65 (2), 255 - 275.36

Eb y, L. T., McManus, S. E., Simon, S. A., & Russell, J. E. (2000). The protege's perspective regarding negative mentoring experiences: The development of a taxonomy . Journal of Vocational Behavior , 57(1), 1 - 21. Eby , L.T., Rhodes, J.E., & Allen, T.D. (20 07 ). Definition and evolution of mentoring. In T.D. Allen and L.T. Eb y (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach , (pp. 7 - 20). Boston: Blackwell Publishing. Eddy , E., Tannenbaum, S., Alliger, G., D’ Abate, C., & Givens, S. (200 1). Mentoring in industry : The top 10 issues when building and supporting a mentoring program (Technical Report No. N61339 - D - 012). Orlando Fl: Naval Air Warfare Training S ys tems Division. Egan, T. M., & Song, Z. (2008). Are facilitated mentoring programs beneficial? A randomized experimental field study . Journal of Vocational Behavior , 72, 351 - 362. Ensher, E. A., Grant - Vallone, E. J., & Marelich, W. D. (2002). Effects of perceived attitudinal and demogra

phic similarity

on protégés ' support and satisfact ion gained from their mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32 (7), 1407 - 1430. Ensher, E. A., & Murph y, S. A. (1997). Effects of race, gender, perceived similarity , and contact on me ntor relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50 (3) , 460 - 481 Federal Aviation Administration (2013). Flightcrew member mentoring, leadership, and professional development. NPRM 4910 - 13, Predecisional Draft (unpublished). F ederal Aviation A dministrati on (2009). Best practices for mentoring in flight instruction. Federal Aviation Administration, 1 (1), 1 - 20. Federal Aviation Administration (2002). Private pilot practical test standards for airplane (SEL, MEL, SES, MES). U.S. Department of Transportation , Federal Aviation Administration, Flight Standards Service, Washington, D . C. Report # FAA - S - 8081 - 14A.37

Ferguson, L. M. (2011 ). From the perspective of new nurses: What do effective mentors look like in practice? Nurse Education in Practice, 11 (2 ), 119 - 123. Files, J.A., Blair, J.E., Mayer, A.P., & Ko, M.G. (2008). Facilitated p eer mentorship: A pilot program for academi c advancement of female medical faculty. Journal of Women's Health. 17(6) , 1009

– 1015. Fleig - Palmer, M. M., & Schoorman, F. D. (2011). Trust as a moderator of the relationship between mentoring and knowledge transfer. Journal of Leadership &Organizational Studies, 18 (3), 334 - 343. Garvey , B., & Alred, G. (2000). Developing m entors. The Career Development International, 5 (4 ), 216 - 22. Ghee sling, R. (2010). A study of formal and informal mentoring in the United States Air Force. (Unpublished Dissertation). Air Force Institute of Technology , Ohio. Ghosh, R., & Reio, T. G., Jr. (2013). Career benefits associated with mentoring for mentors: A meta - anal ys is. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83 (1), 106

– 116. Gibson, S. (1998). An evaluation of characteristics and practices associated with effective mentoring within the United States Air Force . (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Air Force Institute of Technology . Giebe lhaus, C. R., & Bowman, C. (2002 ). Teaching M entors: Is ItWorth the Effort? The Journal of Educational Research , 95(4) , 246. Green, S. S. & Bauer, T. N. (1995). Supervisory mentoring b y advisers: Relationships with doctoral student potential, productivity , and commitment. Personnel Psychology, 48 (3), 537 - 561 .38

Haggard, D.L., Dougherty, T.W., Turban, D.B., & Wilbanks, J.E. (2011). Who is a mentor? A review of evolving definitions and implications for research. Journal of Management , 37 , 280 - 304. Hamlin, R. & Sage, L. (2011). Behavioral criteria of perceived mentoring effectiveness: An empirical study

of effective and ineffective mentor and mentee behavior within formal mentoring relationships. Journal o f European Industrial Training, 35 (8), 752 - 778. Harris, R. R., Simons, M. M., Bridge, K. K., Bone, J. J., Sy mons, H. H., Clay

ton, B. B., Pope, B., Cummins, G., & Blom, K. (2001). Factors that contribute to retention and completion rates for apprentices and trainees . Leabrook, SA, Australia : National Centre for Vocational Education Research Lt d . Harvard Business Essentials. (2004). Coaching and Mentoring: How to Develop Top Talent and Achieve Stronger Performance . Boston: Harvard Business Press . Hegstad, C. D. & Wentling, R. M. (2004). The de velopment and maintenance of exemplary formal mentoring programs in Fortune 500 Companies. Human Resource Development Quarterly , 15(4), 421 - 448. Hill, A., & Dalley- Trim, L. (2008). Hanging in there: What makes a difference in the first ye ar of an apprenticeship. Youth Studies Australia, 27(1), 36 - 42. Hoffman, R. R., Ward, P., Feltovich, P. J., DiBello, L ., Fiore, S. M., & Andrews, D. H. (2013). Accelerated Le arning: Training for High Proficiency in a Complex World . New York: Psychology

Press. International Federation of Airl ine Pilots Association (2012). IFALPA pilot training standards: Guide for best practices. The International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Association, Retrieved from: http://www.talpa.org/wp - content/uploads/IPTS.pdf39

Inzer, L.D., & Crawford, C.B. (2005). A review of formal and informal mentoring: Processes, problems, and design. Journal of Leadership Education , Vol. 4(1), Summer, 31 - 50. Jac obi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature review. Review Of Educational Research, 61 (4), 505 - 5 32 Johnson, W. (2002). The intentional mentor: Strategies and guidelines for the practice of mentoring . Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 33 (1), 88 - 96 . Kasprisin, C.A., & Single, P.B. (2005). Identifying essential elements of successful e - mentoring programs through needs assessment. In F.K. Kochan & J.T. Pascarelli (Eds.), Mentoring and technology: Insights and challenge . (pp. 51

– 71). Gree nwich, CT: Information Age Publishing . Kasprisin, C., Single, P., Single, R. M., Ferrier, J. L., & Mul ler, C. B. (2008). Improved m entor satisfaction: Emphasizing protégé training for adult - age mentoring dyads. Men toring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 16(2), 163 - 174 . Kenter, Peter. (2010). Engineering Mentors: Invisible Encouragement for the Invisible Profession. Schulich Engineer , December , p.19. Kram, K. E. (1985). Improving the mentoring process. Training &Development Journa l . Kram, K.E. (1988). Mentoring at W ork: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life . New York: University

Press of America Lankau, M. J., Riordan, C. M., & Thomas, C. H. (2005). Journal of Vocational Behavior , 67, 252 - 265. Lee, F.K., Dougherty , T.W ., & Turban, D.B. ( 2000 ) . The role of personality and work values in mentoring programs. Review of Business, 21 (1) , 33

–40.40

Madlock, P. E., & Kennedy- Li ghtsey , C. (201 0). The effects of supervisors’ verbal aggressiveness and mentoring on their subordinates. Journal of Business Communication, 47(1), 42 - 62. Martin, S. M., & Sifers, S. K. (2012). An evaluation of factors leading to mentor satisfaction with the mentoring relationship. Children and Youth Services Review , 34 (5), 940 - 945. Murray , M. (1991). Beyond the myths and magic of mentoring: How to facilitate an effective mentoring program . pp. 210 . San Fran cisco, CA, US: Jossey - Bass; US. National Research Council (2011). The Effects of Commuting on Pi lot Fatigue . Washington, DC: National Academ y Press. Noe, R. A. (1988) An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41 (3 ), 457 - 479. NTSB (2010). Loss of control on approach, Colgan Air, Inc., op erating as Continental Connection Flight 3407, Bombardier DHC - 8 - 400, N200W

Q, Clarence Center, New York, February 12, 2009 . NTSB Accident Report AAR - 10/01 (Feb. 2, 2010). O’Brien, K.E., Biga, A., Kessler, S.R., & Allen, T.D. (2010). A meta - analytic investigation of gender differences in mentoring. Journal of Management, 36(2), 537 - 554. Office of Personnel Management (2008). Best Practices: Mentoring . Washington, D.C.: US Office of Personnel Management. Piper, R. E., II. (2013). To be or not to be...perceived benefits of mentoring in the United States Air Force. (Unpublished Dissertation). Air Force Institute of Technology , Ohio. Ragins, B. R. & Cotton, J. L . (1999) Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology , 84(4), 529 - 550.41

Ramani, S., Gruppen, L., & Kachur, E. (2006). Twelve tips for developing effective mentors. Medical Teacher, 28 (5), 404 - 408 . Ramaswami, A., & Dreher, G .F. (2010). The benefits associated with workplace mentoring relationships. In T.D. Allen & L.T. Edy (Eds.). The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach (p. 211 - 233). Boston: Blackwell Publishing. Scandura, T.A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility : An empirical investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 13, 169 - 174. Scandura, T. A. (1998). Dy sfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes. Journal of Management, 24 (3), 449 - 467. Scandura, T.A., & Pellegrini, E. K. (2010). Workplace mentoring: Theoretical approaches and methodological issues. In T.D. Allen & L.T. Edy (Eds.). The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach (p. 71 - 91). Boston: Blackwell Publishing. Scandura, T. A., & Ragins , B.R. (1993). The effects of sex and gender role orientation on mentorship in male - dominated occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43, 251 - 265. Scandura, T.A., & Viator, R. (1994). Mentoring in public accounting firms: An anal ys is of mentor - protégé relationships, mentoring functions, and protégé turnover intentions. Accounting, Organizations &Society , 19, 717 - 734. Scielzo, S. A. (2008). The effects of training on goal orientation, mentoring relationship processes, and outcomes . (Doctoral dissertati on) University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida . Seibert, S. (1999). The effectiveness of facilitated mentoring: A longitudinal quasi experiment. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 54 (3), 483 - 502.42

Shipp, A. J., & Fried, Y. (Eds.). (2014). Time and Work, Volume 1: How Time Impacts Individuals . New York: Psychology Press. Shipp, A. J., & Fried, Y. (Eds.). (2014). Time and Work, Volume 2: How Time Impacts Groups, Organizations and Methodological Choices . New York: Psychology Press. Shrestha, C.H., May , S., Edirisingha, P., Burke, L., & Linsey , T. (2009). From face - to - face to e mentoring: Does the “e” add any value for mentors? International journal of teaching and learning in higher education , 20, 116 - 124. Single, P.B., & Muller, C.B. (2001). When Email and mentoring unite: The implementation of a nationwide electronic mentoring program

—MentorNet, the National electronic industrial mentoring network for women in engineering and science. In L.K. Stromei (Ed.) Creating mentoring and coaching programs: Twelve case studies from the real world of training . (p. 107 - 122). Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Smith, W.J., Howard, J.T., & Harrington, K.V. (2005). Essential formal mentor characteristics and functions in governmental and non - gov ernmental organizations from the program administrator’s and the mentor’s perspective. Public Personnel Management Vol. 34(1), spring 2005, pp. 31 - 57. Straus, S. E., Johnson, M. O., Marquez, C., & Feldman, M. D. (2013). Characteristics of successful and f

ailed mentoring relationships: A qualitative study across two academic health centers . Acad

emic Medicine, 88 (1), 82 - 89. Teatheredge, J. (2010). Interviewing student and qualified nurses to find out what makes an effective mentor. Nursing Times, 106(48), 19 - 21.43

Turban, D. B., & Dougherty , T. W. (1994). Role of protégé personalit y in receipt of mentoring and career success. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 688 - 702. Turban, D.B., & Lee, F.K. (2007). The role of personality in mentoring relationships: Formation, dynamics, and outcomes. In B.R. Ragins & K.E. Kram (Eds.). The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Underhill, C.M. (2006). The effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate settings: A meta anal yt ical review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68 (2), 292 - 307. Van Emmerik, H., Baugh, S. G., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Who wants to be a mento r? An examination of attitudinal, instrumental, and social motivational components. Career Development International , 10 (4), 310 - 324. Wanberg, C. R., Kammeyer - Mueller, J., & Marchese, M. (2006). Mentor and protégé predictors and outcomes of mentoring in a formal mentoring program. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 69 (3), 410 - 423. Waters, L . (2004). Protégé - mentor agreement about the provision of psychosocial support: The mentoring relationship, personality , and workload. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65 (3), 519 - 532 Zerzan, J., Hess, R., Schur, E., Phillips, R., & Rigotti, N. (2009 ). Making the most of mentors: A guide for mentees. Academic Medicine, 84 (1), 140 - 144. Ze y, M.G. (2014). Virtual mentoring: The challenges and opportunities of electronicallymediated formal mentor programs. Downloaded 9/21/2014. http://library .constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1103507732457 - 19/Virtual+Mentoring.pdf44 

### Appendix A **– Summary of**  **Workplace Mentoring (Met**  **a Analyses)*** **Article Population**  **Time frame of review**  **Aspect of m entoring** 

**studied Variables studied in relation to**  **me ntoring**  **Key findings/conclusions** Underhill (2006) Em

ployed Adults 1988 - 2004 (14

individual studies) Mentored vs non - me ntored Outcomes: income, tenure, number of promotions, job satisfaction, self - esteem, intent to stay, promotion/career advancement, organizational commitment, alternative employment opportunities, work stress, work family conflict Positive effect on job satisfaction, organ izational commitment, selfesteem, lower work stress, work - family conflict, and perceptions of promotion or career advancement ; informal mentoring had larger effects than did formal mentoring Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima (2004) Em

ployed Adults Refere nces

from 1985 - 2004 43 individual studies Mentored versus non mentored; protégé perceived career and psychosocial mentoring Outcomes: Objective and subjective career success, satisfaction, relationship quality Small but positive relationships with compensation and number of promotions, greater satisfaction with career and jobs, more likely to advance and more committed to their career Eby, Allen, Evans, Ng, & DuBois (2008) Youth,

academic, em ployed adults 1985 - 2006

116 independent samples Mento red versus non mentored Outcomes: behavioral, attitudinal, health - related, relational, mo tivational, career Effect sizes were generally small, largest effect sizes were between mentoring and helping others, school attitudes, and career attitudes, smallest were between mentoring and psychological stress and strain, effect sizes for youth ranged from .03 to .14, for academic and workplace mentoring they ranged from .11 - .36 and .03 - .19 respectively Kammeyer Mueller & Judge (2008) Em

ployed Adults 1987 - 2007

120 unique samples Mentored versus non mentored; protégé perceived instrumental and psychosocial mentoring, overall mentoring quality or satisfaction with mentor Predictors and outcomes: demographic, core self

- evaluations, performance, promotions, salary, job satisfaction, career satisfaction Benefits of mentoring are modest. Positive effect on job and career satisfaction after controlling for demographics, human capital, and core self - evaluations O’Brien, Biga, Kessler, & Allen (2010) Em

ployed Adults 1984 - 2007

40 published articles and 1 conference Mentored versus not

mentored; protégé perceptions of instrumental and psychosocial mentoring Predictors: mentor and protégé gender Very small in magnitude gender differences (e.g., no gender difference in reported experience as a protégé and report of career development; women45 paper perceive more psychosocial mentoring; men are more likely to serve as mentors). Further research is needed to assess the influence of potential mo derators.) Eby, Allen, Hoffman, Baranik, Sauer, Baldwin, Morrison, Kinka de, Maher, Curtis, & Evans (2013 ) Youth,

Academic, Workplace 1985 - 2010

173 independent samples (14 yo uth, 36 academic and 117 workplace) Protégé perceptions of

instrumental and psychosocial support and protégé perceptions of relationship quality in relation to each other, as well as to potential antecedents, correlates, and consequences Predictors and Outcomes: antecedents (demographics, human capital, relationship attributes) correlates (interaction frequency, relationship length, performance, mo tivation, social capital), consequences (attitudinal outcomes, behavioral outcomes, career - related outcomes, health related outcomes) **Potential Antecedents:** Deep - level similarity was related to protégé perceptions of ins trumental, psychosocial support and relationship quality; experiential similarity was positively related to instrumental support and relationship quality; **Potential Correlates:** interaction frequency was positively related with instrumental support, psychos ocial support, and relationship quality; longer durations resulted in greater perceived psychosocial support and higher relationship quality; **Potential Outcom**  **es:** Perceived greater instrumental support, psychosocial support, and higher relationship quality also reported higher situational satisfaction and sense of affiliation; higher reports of instrumental support and psychosocial support reported greater socialization/learning; small effect relations greater instrumental support to reported higher compensation, greater instrumental support and higher relationship quality were related to career success, only weak relationships evident for any of the health - related outcomes

* This table is an expansion of the table included in Eby , Allen, Hoffman, Baranik, Sauer, Baldwin, Morrison, Kinkade, Maher, Curtis, and Evans (201 3 ).46



### Appendix B **– An Evidence**  **- Based Approach to Workplace Mentoring**  The information contained in this section is based primarily on the work of Allen, Finkelstein, and Poteet (2009), that provides “evidenced - based guidance” to organizations regarding the development of formal mentoring programs. As part of the introduction they caution organizations that one mentoring program approach will not necessarily fit all organizations. Each organization needs to develop their approach based on their particular needs and objectives. Following an introduction the book chapters are devoted to, what the authors feel, are specific elements of any mentoring program (Planning and providing inf rastructure; Participant recruitment and selection; Matching mentors and protégés; Training; Mentoring structure and process; and Monitoring and program evaluation). We have elected to provide a brief summary of the information provided in each chapter al ong with the action plan that concludes each of the chapters. In their book, Allen, Finkelstein, and Poteet (2009) include forms in Appendices “A” through “O” that can be used b y an organization to support program development and evaluation. In the introduction, the authors indicate that until recently there was insufficient empirical research to help guide the development of workplace mentoring programs. The recommendations provided are based, to the extent possible, on a sy nthesis of available rese arch evidence. One caution regarding much of the existing scientific literature concerns the overall rigor of that research. Eby et al. (2012) provide the following caution

– “The vast majority of effects reported were based on cross sectional data (93%) and none were based on data from experimental designs, precluding our ability to make causal inferences (pg. 23).” They also expressed concerns that much of the primary data involves self

- report data for both independent and dependent variables which increa ses the potential for common source bias. Other authors support those concerns and point47

to other issues where the experimental design is lacking, more rigorous methodological research is needed. Mentoring provides two primary forms of support, career - related support and psychosocial support. Mentoring differs from other relationships at work in that it is a two person relationship; while as ymmetrical, the relationship is mutual, as well as being dy namic. While mentoring may

include elements of teaching and skill - based instruction that are the focus in coaching, it is broader since it encompasses elements that involve extending the protégé’s contacts and assists him/her in better understanding the organization so as to help advance professional development. Examples of the mentoring efforts from several larger organizations are illustrated throughout the book. **Planni ng and Providing Infrastructure**  Without sound planning and an infrastructure that demonstrates strong managerial and organizational support, a fo rmal mentoring program is likely to fail. To develop the mentoring program, management needs to conduct a formal needs assessment to identify the overall basis for mentoring. This will assist in identifying the objectives of the program. The needs assessme nt can involve emplo ye e survey s, individual interviews, or focus groups. The authors also indicate that the effort needs to be fully integrated into the organization’s human resources (HR) sy stem as well as the organization’s overall mission, values, and p hilosophy . The implementation effort needs to demonstrate how upper - level management is behind the initiative. Based on Eddy, Tannenbaum, Alliger, D’Abate, and Givens’ (2001) review of 127 formal mentoring programs across industries, the objectives most frequently cited for formal mentoring programs included: managerial talent development, skill building, diversity development, and new employee socialization. Hegstad and Wentling (2004), in their qualitative review of the mentoring48

programs from 17 Fortune 500 Companies, reported that their mentoring programs were first initiated for retention (53%), diversity initiative (53%), and career management or development (47%). **Participant Recruitment and Selection** Based on the program objectives, who should be the targeted participants? It may not be impossible to have sufficient mentors for all potential protégés. Research suggests that mentoring programs often target new hires, an yone in the organization, high potential employees, and those in professional and managerial ranks. Of the 17 Fortune 500 Companies, 9 programs were for all employees, 4 were for high potential emplo ye es, 3 were for new hires, several focused on “new hires of color,” and 1 was for women (Hegstad & Wentling, 2004, p. 435). Eddy et al. (2 001) reveal that over half of the formal mentoring programs screen employees on factors that include potential for advancement, desire to participate, tenure, and interest and goals. A sample of protégé screening criteria includes skill - based, motivation - b ased, and personality- based criteria. One of the first issues involves guidelines for participation. Most programs do not require mandatory

participation either by

the mentor or protégé. While research from the mentoring literature is not clear cut, eviden ce from most training programs suggests that voluntary participation leads to improved outcomes. Screening is also required for mentors since the relationship between mentor and protégé is, according to research by Matthews (2003), the most important fac tor affecting the overall quality of the experience. Be yond interest and motivation, the authors include empath y, ability to role model appropriate behavior, confidence, listening and communications skills, technical49

knowledge, credibility , commitment, pat ience, and other ty pes of knowledge, skills, abilities, and characteristics. **Matching Mentors and Protégés** Ty pically , a matching process is used for mentors and protégés. Given the criticality of the relationship, the matching process is highl y important. In their meta - analy tic review, Eb y et al. (201 3 ) revealed that what they called perceived deep - level similarity between mentor and protégé exhibited “the strongest and most positive association” with protégé perceptions of instrumental support, psychosocial support, and ratings of the relationship quality . As noted earlier, perceived deep - level similarity is most often based on self - reports. Research does not support any

single approach to matching. Approaches vary from some organizations where protégés ide ntify

their own mentor to situations where a computer algorithm is used to match the two. Inany

case, the company

needs to develop a standardized process for making the decision. Most companies appear to use a structured matching procedure. Similarity alo ng some dimension appears to be most relevant. Eb y et al. (201 3 ) would recommend that attempts should be made to identify

mentor - protégé commonalities in values, beliefs, personality , and other characteristics. Specific suggestions b y Allen, Finkelstein, and Poteet (2009) include: (a) base the matching process on the program’s objectives, (b) base the matching process on the compan y’s culture, (c) pair mentors and protégés in close ph ys ical proximity , (d) pair mentors and protégés not in direct line of supervisory relationship, (e) base the matching decision on multiple factors, (f) ensue rationality and consistency

of matching decisions, and (g) include some level of “similarity” even for “dissimilar” mentor- protégé relationships.50

**Training** Nearl y all organi zations require training before employees enter into a new assignment. All but one of the Fortune 500 Companies examined had a required training program. Recent research suggests that mentors and protégés appear to benefit from the training, and outcomes tend to be more positive. The training should be built around the program objectives and goals of the mentoring. While there appears to be little research surrounding the content of the training, Allen, Finkelstein, and Poteet (2009) recommend that the fol lowing be included: (a) a definition of mentoring, (b) an outline of the program objectives, (c) a review of responsibilities of both mentors and protégés, (d) a preview of the role of the program staff, (e) clear expectations for what the program can and cannot do, (f) established structure and boundaries for the mentor protégé relationship, (g) a description of the potential relationship challenges, and (h) a description of the structure of the formal mentoring program (pg. 63). It is recommended that the training itself should be evaluated. **Mentoring Structure and Process** Since trust is an important part of the mentoring process, all parties need to be aware of what the standards are in terms of confidentiality. You may want to recognize that there may b e circumstances where it is appropriate to share feedback with other individuals. Establishing expectations, goals, and boundaries for the relationship are an important first step in the mentoring process. There is some evidence that this contributes to protégé satisfaction. Another component involves the frequency of the interactions and the method for meeting. While meeting frequency across organizations varies, the most common involves monthly interactions. This should be addressed in the organizational guidelines. While face - to - face meetings are often preferred, there are numerous other approaches that have been used (e - mail, video - conferencing,51

and e - mentoring). Kram (1985) conducted a qualitative investigation of “developmental relationships” at work (mentoring). The process often lasted from 6 - 8 years and involved four states (initiation, cultivation, separation, and redefinition). Formal mentoring relationships are ty picall y much shorter. Guidelines for the Fortune 500 Companies examined included 14 where the formal relationship lasted a year, 1 was 9 months in length, and 2 left the length of the relationship up to the participants (Hegstad & Wentling, 2004). Participants were allowed to continue beyond the guidelines if they so desired. In the Fortun e 500 companies examined, guidelines for meeting frequency was varied from two times a month, once a month, six times in a year, to leaving that detail to the participants. There is weak evidence in the research literature, which suggests that protégés exp erience more benefits from longer relationships. Eby et al. (201 3 ), in their meta - analy sis of 173 programs, found that an increase in interaction frequency led to an increase in protégé perceptions of instrumental support, psychosocial support, and relatio nship quality . **Monitoring and Program Evaluation** The only way you can ensure that the mentoring program is achieving the goals and objectives is through a monitoring and evaluation process. A monitoring process will help identify problems that may

arise. M onitoring will provide an opportunity to determine if meetings are being held regularl y and if progress is being made. Monitoring can be accomplished in several way s (survey s, face - to face meetings, phone contacts, group meetings). Without a proper evaluat ion, the organization has no way of knowing the program’s return - on investment. Kirkpatrick (1994) has provided extensive guidance regarding the evaluation of training programs that can be adapted to evaluating mentoring programs. Many times evaluations ar e focused primarily

on reactions to the training and what participants learned from the training.52

Kirkpatrick describes four levels of measurement: (1) reactions to the training, (2) learning what resulted from the training, (3) behavior or performance change, and (4) business results for the organization. There are a number of approaches to gathering the necessary data from face - to - face meetings to more elaborate survey s and questionnaires. A tracking s ys tem will need to be established to assess longitudin al performance. The information gained from the evaluations can be used to revise and improve the mentoring program. **Action Plan Planning and Providing Infrastructure**  **:**  Determine the relevant questions to be addressed in a needs assessment (including organi zational and person anal ys is).

 Determine the methods to be used for conducting the needs analy sis.

 Conduct the needs analy sis.

 Conduct an external scan of the environment.

 Based on the results of the needs assessment, decide whether a formal mentoring program is appropriate. If so, proceed with following actions.

 Determine whether there is an adequate level of upper- management and front - line support for the program.

 Determine specificall y how this support will be behaviorall y demonstrated to potential participants.

 Based on the results of the needs assessment, clearly state (in writing) the specific objectives of the program.

 State the specific measurable outcomes that you would like to achieve.

 Develop a program evaluation plan.53

 Review current HR s ys te ms and leadership development strategies, and determine how mentoring fits into the HR strategy .  Determine the level of structure and formality that will best fit the organization’s culture.

 Select a program administrator, ensuring he or she has the motivation and time for the position.

 Decide if there will be a steering committee, determine the ty pes of people to be represented on the committee, and recruit committee members.

 Determine the specific responsibilities of the program administrator and members of the steering committee, and determine how often they will meet.

 Set a date and an agenda for the initial steering committee meeting (pg. 22). **Participant Recruitment and Selection:**

 Narrow down the pool of potential protégés depending on the goal of the program and the target number of protégés desired, given resources.

 Within this pool, determine if protégé selection will be voluntary or mandatory .  Determine protégé screening criteria and how to measure those criteria.

 Screen protégés and select final po ol.

 Determine the qualities needed in mentors based on the goal of the program.

 Determine number of mentors needed based on the number of protégés.

 Recruit potential mentors.

 Determine mentor screening criteria and how to measure those criteria.

 Screen pot ential mentors.

 At this stage, consider retaining more than the number of mentors you will ultimately need, to provide more flexibility at the matching stage (pg. 35).54

**Matching Mentors and Protégés:**

 Once the pool of mentors and protégés is determined, the mentoring steering committee should discuss the goals of the program, the cultural expectations of the organization, and the resources available to determine a matching strategy .  Determine what specific characteristics will be used for the match, and measu re (or gather information) on those characteristics.

 If multiple characteristics will be used in matching, determine a weighting system.

 Determine if a computer algorithm will be used for the match if so, put in place (in - house or through the use of a cons ultant).

 If input from the mentor or protégé will be used, determine how those individuals will garner information about potential partners (e.g., through written information, social function, or individual interviews).

 Determine a time frame for completin g the matches and schedule all needed meetings/interviews/events.

 Decide how the match information will be communicated to the participants.

 If more potential mentors were recruited than actually needed, determine how to inform those not chosen of your dec ision (pg. 58). **Training:**

 Determine the resources available to devote to training in terms of cost (e.g., for training materials) and time (for preparation as well as mentor, protégé, and trainer time away from work).

 Given the resources at your disposal, clearl y state (in writing) your training objectives and determine how man y layers of training would best suit your needs.55

 Make an outline of the topics and specifics to be covered in the first layer of training (e.g., foundational topics such as objectives , roles, expectations). Create an y needed presentation slides.

 Make an outline of the topics and specifics to be covered in the second layer of training (e.g., topics specific to your organization and the goals of your mentoring program). Create an y needed presentation slides and practice activities.

 If including a third layer of training topics (knowledge and skill development), determine the specific knowledge and skills to be covered for mentors and protégés. Determine if this will be done in separate training sessions. Create or find relevant experiential exercises and create an y needed presentation slides.

 Do a “dry

run” of the training sessions, possibly with the mentoring steering committee, to work out an y problematic issues.

 Create a training evaluation strategy and an y forms of materials to be used to evaluate the training program.

 Determine whether all participants will take part in one big training session or if there will be several for them to choose from. This may depend on the size of the program and the flexibility

of schedules.

 Schedule and conduct the training.

 Evaluate the training and determine if improvements should be made (pg. 69). **Mentoring Structure and Process:**

 Make decisions about the level of confidentiality required of the mentors and protégés; communicate this to them and decide if it should be part of a written mentoring agreement. If it is determined that mentors will share information on protégés to56

supervisors/organizational leaders, the nature of the information that will be shared should be clarified to all parties.

 Decide whether a mentoring agreement will be used and design the template of an agreement to include information to guide goal setting, boundary setting, and expectations.

 Determine whether the meeting frequency guidelines will be mandated by the committee, only suggested b y the committee, or fully determined by

the pairs. Communicate this to the pairs.

 Determine if the mode of conduct will be only in person, or in person combined with phone and/or electronic communication, or if this will be decided by the pairs. Communicate this to the pairs.

 Determine whether the length of the relationships will be set by the mentoring committee or set by individual pairs; if by

committee, decide on the length and communicat e this to the pairs.

 Communicate to the pairs what the expected roles are of protégés and mentors for driving the process.

 Decide if a protégé development plan will be used by the pair and, if so, design a template to include whatever components make sense for the goals of the program.

 Decide on the typ e of planned activities to be included in the program (pg. 83). **Monitoring and Program Evaluation:**

 Plan how often you will check in with the mentors and protégés throughout the mentorship.57

 Decide whether thes e check - ins will involve survey s, individual meetings, or group meetings (or a mix of these methods).

 Create a list of questions to be used for the check - ins.

 Determine a step - by- step plan for handling problems within matches. Id eally this is something that the pairs will be informed of during orientation.

 Decide how the data gathered will be tracked and anal yz ed, who will be responsible for that, and who will see the data.

 Based on the program objectives, select or create the appropriate program evaluation criteria.

 Determine whether measures will be qualitative, quantitative, or both.

 Decide what measures should focus on the individual level and what should focus on the organizational level.

 Determine what reactions you would like to garner from participants and create appropriate reaction measure.

 If learning was a measurable objective determined at the outset, create or select a measure to assess the level of learning. Id eall y there will be a pre - and post - measure to look for change.

 If specific behavior/

performance change was a measurable objective determined at the outset, create or select a measure to assess that behavioral change. Id eall y there will be a pre - and post - measure to look for change.

 If organizational - level business results were a measurabl e objective determined at the outset, decide which business metrics will be examined and how the impact of other business factors on those metrics will be controlled.58

 Decide the method for collecting these evaluations (e.g., individual meetings, focus grou ps, survey s). Id eall y if methodological control is feasible, assignment of participants to groups should be considered earlier on in the process.

 Create a timeline or when various measures will be taken, and task individuals on the mentoring committee with carryi ng out the process (pg. 102,103

– All page numbers refer to Allen, Finkelstein and Poteet (2009)).



### References **– Appendices**  Allen, T.D., Finkelstein, L.M., & Poteet, M.L. (2009). Designing Workplace Mentoring Programs . Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell. Eby , L.T., Allen, T.D., Hoffman, B.J., Baranik, L.E., Sauer, J.B., Baldwin, S., Morrison, M.A., Kinkade, K.M., Maher, C.P., Curtis, S., & Evans, S.C. (201 3 ). An interdisciplinary meta anal ys is of the potential antecedents, correlates, and consequences of protég é perceptions of mentoring. ( Mar 16). Psychological Bulletin . , 139(2), 441 - 476 . Eddy , E., Tannenbaum, S., Alliger, G., D’Abate, C., & Givens, S. (2001). Mentoring in industry : The top 10 issues when building and supporting a mentoring program. Technical r eport prepared for the Naval Air Warfare Training S ys tems Division (Contract No. N61339 - 99 - D - 0012), Orlando, FL. Hegstad, C.D. & Wentling, R.M. (2004). The development and maintenance of exemplary formal mentoring programs in Fortune 500 Companies. Human Resources Development Quarterly , 15(4), 421 - 448. Kammeyer - Mueller, J. D., & Judge, T. A. (2008). A quantitative review of mentoring research: Test of a model. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 72, 269 - 283 .59

Kirkpatrick, D. (1994). Evaluating training programs : The four levels . San Francisco, CA: Berrett - Koehler. Kram, K.E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life . Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Compan y. Matthews, B.A. (2003). Enhancing the protective capacity of mentorin g relationships: Strengthening the social bond. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences , 65(03), 112